ALL CHINA EXPRESS LTD v. KWOK CHEUK KIN AND OTHERS

ALL CHINA EXPRESS LTD v. KWOK CHEUK KIN AND OTHERS

The court dismissed the s10 mediation disclosure application because no mediation had occurred and no mediation communications existed; the court refused the amendment‑opposing summons because a served statement of claim is not an amendment to the writ and was required by the Rules of the High Court; the court granted a short extension for filing defence and ordered costs to the plaintiff to be paid forthwith, taxed if not agreed.

Citation
ALL CHINA EXPRESS LTD v. KWOK CHEUK KIN AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: Unnamed 1st Defendant; Defendant: Kwok Cheuk Kin; Defendant: Wong Ho Ming; Defendant: See Wah Fan
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 February 2015
Case Number
HCA2223/2014
Procedural Posture
Public Nuisance; Interlocutory Injunction / Chambers Hearing on Summonses Concerning Mediation Disclosure and Amendment Opposition; Decision on Summonses and Costs
Outcome
Mediation disclosure summons dismissed; amendment‑opposing summons refused; extension to file defence granted; costs awarded to plaintiff
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Mediation Ordinance S10 Disclosure, High Court Ordinance S48 Interest, Rules of High Court O 18 R 1, Rules of High Court O 20 R 1 and R 4, Interlocutory Relief, Voluntary Discovery
Source Language
EN
Public Nuisance Civil Procedure Mediation Law Injunctions Costs Service of Process Mediation Ordinance S10 Disclosure High Court Ordinance S48 Interest +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Unnamed 1st Defendant

Defendant

Kwok Cheuk Kin

Defendant

Wong Ho Ming

Defendant

See Wah Fan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Public Nuisance; Interlocutory Injunction / Chambers Hearing on Summonses Concerning Mediation Disclosure and Amendment Opposition; Decision on Summonses and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave under s10 Mediation Ordinance should be granted to disclose or admit mediation communications
  2. 2 Whether the statement of claim amounts to an amendment to the writ such that an application to disallow amendments should succeed
  3. 3 Whether extension of time to file defence should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The court dismissed the s10 mediation disclosure application because no mediation had occurred and no mediation communications existed; the court refused the amendment‑opposing summons because a served statement of claim is not an amendment to the writ and was required by the Rules of the High Court; the court granted a short extension for filing defence and ordered costs to the plaintiff to be paid forthwith, taxed if not agreed.

Court Disposition

Mediation disclosure summons dismissed; amendment‑opposing summons refused; extension to file defence granted; costs awarded to plaintiff

Orders

  • Dismissed the mediation information summons under s10 of the Mediation Ordinance
  • Refused the amendment opposing summons (O 20 r 1(3)(b) and (c) and r 4)